How could any serious developer consider subversion? It isn't even close to mature and has some serious administrative flaws.

At least CVS has been around for a while and the underlying structure is well understood. And graphing applications for the history of a file in subversion are not easy to come by.

What is worst about subversion is the inability to make a catastrophic check-in disappear. Anyone who argues that giving the administrator god-like powers is a bad thing (as the restrictive subversion treats the admin like a lowly untrustworthy grasshopper) clearly hasn't used Perl much where the philosophy is giving enough rope to hang oneself.

I've yet to have a convincing argument that subversion is worth looking at for a serious source code repository system yet (at least while CVS is so superior).

How could any serious leader consider democracy? It isn't even close to mature and has some serious administrative flaws.

At least monarchy has been around for a while and the underlying structure is well understood.

What is worst about democracy is the inability to make a catastrophic decision disappear. Anyone who argues that giving the government god-like powers is a bad thing (as the restrictive democracy treats the admin like a lowly untrustworthy grasshopper) clearly hasn't worn a crown much where the philosophy is giving enough rope to hang one's enemies.

I've yet to have a convincing argument that democracy is worth looking at for a serious governmental system yet (at least while monarchy is so superior).

(Yes, I know this is somewhat unfair. Nevertheless, it practically wrote itself.)

Everyone is looking for a different subset of all possible features. I would find CVS unlivable after using subversion, because subversion fixes things that really bothered me in CVS. Obviously you don't feel the same, so I can't really argue the (by design) "serious administrative flaws".

But did you have something specific in mind with the "isn't even close to mature"?